July 6, 2010

By Dave Andrusko

Part Two is the encouraging news that 60% of the public wants ObamaCare repealed! Part Three is a link to the NRLC 2010 convention CDs which are now available. Part Four is also good news--that someone who once strongly believe in embryonic stem cell research now agrees there is a better way. And don't forget "National Right to Life News Today" (www.nationalrighttolifenewstoday.org) which provides two must-reads. Please send all of your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like join those who are now following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha.

Cong. Steve Driehaus

Once upon a time a long, long, long time ago, Labor Day was considered the "kick-off" for, if not the entire election season, certainly the heavy-lifting stage.

Nowadays if someone waited until September 6 to crank up the election machinery, he or she would be laughed off stage.

I say that because the political press corps is really gearing up now, starting to put the pieces together. The composite picture for pro-abortion Democrats post-ObamaCare is not a pretty picture.

This is especially true for erstwhile "pro-life" Democrats who've offered a variety of unconvincing explanations why they provided the critical votes need to pass the pro-abortion, pro-rationing health care "reform" law. (See below.)

The unenviable backdrop for the party in power is that it IS the party in power. The Presidency and both houses of Congress are in the hands of Democratic pro-abortionists (who, of course, will try to assuage voter disenchantment by sloughing off blame).

That litany of bad news for Democrats as a party includes Wall Street pulling back on its campaign contributions to Democratic candidates (as Politico put it this morning "the fundraising blowback"); Barack Obama's precipitous fall in popularity among all voters, but especially the kinds of voters who gave him the crucial edge in 2008 (see www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/.../2010/07/04/AR2010070403988.html); the continuing massive voter unhappiness with ObamaCare (see Part Two)--to name just three of a dozen different vectors all pointing downward for Democrats.

Our focus here is on the formerly pro-life Democrats who were told in no uncertain terms that a vote for ObamaCare was a vote for the most pro-abortion law enacted since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Fourteen-term West Virginia incumbent Alan Mollohan has already lost in his party's primary.

Others Democrats face strong pro-life competitors in November. The Washington Post ran a piece over the weekend analyzing that state of House Democrats who abandoned the pro-life ranks, such as Ohio Rep. Steve Driehaus. Driehaus is being opposed by former Republican Congressman Steve Chabot, who has been endorsed by National Right to Life PAC.

As NRLC has pointed out repeatedly, the new law not only requires federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, it also undermines and longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well. But Driehaus told the Post's Sandhya Somashekhar this is all hooey, a product of "misinformation from the other side."

Driehaus turns the criticism from groups such as NRLC on its head. He argues that "his vote on health care was an affirmation, not a repudiation, of his anti-abortion views," according to Somashekhar.

With one exception, no pro-life organization gives any credibility to this patently untrue (not to mention self-exculpating) assessment. That one does, however, will no doubt be used by Driehaus to try to defuse pro-life opposition. This diminution won't come to pass, of course, because NRLC, with your help, will make sure the electorate knows the truth about Obama's health care law.

As you read the Post article, you see that part of the rationale for defending this egregiously pro-abortion vote is that Obama signed an Executive Order which merely referred to some of the issues, without resolving them, and made no reference at all to some others.

Beyond the obvious--that Obama can either not enforce an Executive Order or reverse it at a moment's notice--the Executive Order was all for political effect. As NRLC explained at the time in a statement, it "changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says."

For right now, the most important thing to remember is that "Some of the most dangerous provisions do not take full effect until 2014 or later," as NRLC Executive Director David N. O'Steen has explained. "So there is a real opportunity for a later Congress to repeal the legislation before then or to prevent the most damaging parts of the legislation from going into effect."

That is why pro-lifers have only begun to fight.

Please read Part Two where we go further into the way the public views ObamaCare.

Part Three
Part Four